Tuesday, May 16, 2017

You say in the abortion chapter in your new book that pro-lifers have the "moral high ground" in trying to protect the innocent. Yet you've also argued that overcoming nature is a moral imperative and that we should "thwart nature’s procreative compulsions" through activities like abortion. How do you reconcile those two views?

In ethics, one of the many branches of philosophy invented by the ancient Greeks, we are usually faced not with a simple, reassuring scheme of right versus wrong but rather an often painfully conflicted choice between morally mixed options. I stated in Vamps & Tramps (1994): "Women’s modern liberation is inextricably linked to their ability to control reproduction, which has enslaved them from the origin of the species." However, as an atheist who nevertheless respects religion, I see and respect the contrary position. As I went on to say: "We career women are arguing from expedience: it is personally and professionally inconvenient or onerous to bear an unwanted child. The pro-life movement, in contrast, is arguing that every conception is sacred and that society has a responsibility to protect the defenseless."

Contemporary American feminism has distorted and desensitized itself by its inability or refusal to recognize the ethical weight of the pro-life position, which it routinely mischaracterizes as "anti-woman." In contrast, I wrote (again in Vamps & Tramps): "Modern woman has become an agent of Darwinian triage. It is or should be ethically troubling: abortion pits the stronger against the weaker, and only one survives." The inflammatory abortion issue has consumed far too much of feminism, to the point of monomania. I used to be a contributing member of Planned Parenthood, until I realized that it had become a covert arm of the Democratic party. If Planned Parenthood is as vital to American women’s health as feminist leaders claim, then why can’t it be removed from the violent political arena altogether and fully funded by wealthy liberal donors? Let the glitterati from Hollywood to Manhattan step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are.

One of the reasons I have always admired Camille Paglia, despite the plethora of my disagreements with her policy positions, is that she is a proper ethicist. Even when she comes down on the wrong side of the moral equation, at least she understands that there is a moral equation involved.

Like Umberto Eco, Paglia represents the best intellectual aspects of the noble post-Christian. However, it must be understood that they were produced by Christian societies, and are neither indicative of, nor can be replicated by, any post-Christian society.

Anyhow, read the whole interview, it's rather better than the run-of-the-mill book launch interview.

92 Comments:

It's the Hitchens' Effect. You can recognize a lot of the similar values within a person you would otherwise completely disagree with. (That, and they don't want to see you sent to the gas chambers for existing.)

Paglia is indeed an interesting person and (a sign of the dreadful state of current affairs) quite brave for questioning - even as a legendary feminist - the newer orthodoxies of the left and of feminism.

But I wonder what value there is to be gained from reading her new book, or anything by her? I can see the value in terms of understanding the mentality and worldview of the elderly 2nd Wave Feminist dealing with reality, but her views will have little connection to those who are reactionary and arguably even less so to the irredeemably demented Millenial+Gen-X feminists.

However things turn out in the coming century, people with Paglia's worldview will not be a major influence - being largely anathema (but, as you say, in some ways respectable to those who are reactionary) while increasingly absolutely anathema to those on the feminist left.

Two posts in a row along a similar line of thought. It is fascinating to examine what is purported to be post-Christian (or "wholly secular") moral philosophy in light of how its very existence will be brief, indeed, if its most zealous holy warriors win the battle. As you state, they simply wouldn't exist if not for 2100 years of Christianity.

The left is truly a suicide squad, first by attempting to eliminate succeeding generations (by rendering childbirth and child-rearing sinful) and then by cultural extinction via import of civilizations inimical to the very foundation on which the leftists' feet stand.

Are all leftists so bereft the ability to forecast their own trends? It appears so.

Back when I was young and naive I drank the Kook-Aid. Then I had children and the spiritual epiphany was as bright as the sun itself. I practically begged my sons to avoid hookups, stating that I'd spend huge $$$$ to avoid seeing my grandchild aborted or raised by some bat-guano crazy woman whose only positive attributes were a pretty face and nice figure.

There is a gulf between me (who knows the joy of looking in the eyes of my grandchild) and those who see a developing fetus as nothing but a burden to be eliminated. That gulf cannot be bridged, and there is ONLY ONE RIGHT WAY TO SEE IT.

He or she on the other side lacks their own personal epiphany. I pity them, while knowing I will NEVER submit to their hegemony. I will NEVER be subjugated by members of a DEATH CULT.

I've always admired Paglia also, especially since that time, 25 years ago, when I made the faux pas of dropping her name in the middle of a 300-level "feminist ethics" seminar that was mandatory for philosophy majors. Anyone whose name was like garlic to a vampire to those degenerate specimens I had to suffer through that semester, HAD to be a decent, respectable human being.

I can (sort of) understand the narcissistic undertow of a man's preference for abortion in this time when the nanny-state stands ready to grab his testicles and squeeze out every ounce of his manhood to "fund" a girl's desire to play single mommy. It's unnatural for men to fulfill the role of gatekeeper WRT reproduction.

It is, however, a testament to the profound inversion of values (and denigration of spiritual well-being) that women are so devoted to elevating the fornication dance to the highest ideal that they cast the single most important thing they bring to the human-being table, the ability to produce a child, to a level below that of a bowel movement.

The fornication dance is just another status-seeking show, just like virtue-signaling and FB-ing the latest purse a girl added to her collection.

Abortion is not about bearing an unwanted child when it involves career women. The child will be wanted. It's about an unnecessary burden to impede a career that magically is less of an impediment when she is older and infertile. The ethics remain the same. Justifying murder due to a timing issue is cruel to one's body and psych and cannot stand.

However, it must be understood that they were produced by Christian societies, and are neither indicative of, nor can be replicated by, any post-Christian society.

I have not read a lot of philosophy of history, but the above is a fundamental truth that a lot of people fail to absorb: windows in history open and close. Ideas are born and preached, resisted, persecuted, triumphant, institutionalized, dogmatized, reactionary, decline, and are forgotten. People and movements are born into those streams of unsynchronized ideas, some rising and some falling, but a combination of which will most likely never form again - that is why the American Revolution is the great glorious jewel of human history: it is built on a foundation of ideas and circumstances and technologies that were completely unique to that era of history - where a man was more or less on his own with a blank slate to prosper by his own hands if he should desire, acquire and fight with the same weapons as the king if he should desire, and worship his God if he should desire.

That is why I am hesitant to cheer it's demise as some are wont to do... it seems likely it will never return.

Paglia strikes me as one fully bought into her own identity, but with enough sense from another Age that she knows she's a Free-Rider. The mentality of the Culturally Important Boomers has always been that: Free-Rider on history. It's like the first photocopy being crisp, but iterations being fuzzy. The Boomers got the baseline teaching but rejected the application. Then large chunks complain when they aren't bailed out for their failures.

Paglia sits and sees the havoc, but she's so far bought in that she can't change course. To do so would be to say her entire life is a lie. Humans don't do that. How do you get to the end of your life, look back, and realize you were utterly wrong? Few humans can accept that much failure & pain.

You're wasting your time and our discussing someone who once wrote the following:

"And is there anything creepier than that current Hillary meme, the campaign slogan "I'm with her"? The blurred borderlines of those pronouns ("I" numbly dissolving into "her") and that ambiguous preposition ("with" her like a child, a lover, or a nurse's aide with a geriatric patient?) are close to pathological. The Hillary acolytes are joined at the hip to "her", the Great Leader Who Needs No Name, the Maternal Tit daubed in wormwood, the bitter toxin left by men—those spoilers of the universe who created the master structures of modern civilization that provide us put-upon gals with jobs, transportation, abundant food, clean water, housing, electricity, and a magical disease-spurning municipal sewage system that only men seem required to clean and repair.'

"The protective major media phalanx around Hillary certainly extends to her health issues, which only the Drudge Report has had the courage to flag. In assessing possible future occupants of the White House, the public has an inalienable right to know. I was incredulous at the passive gullibility of the media, including the New York Times, last July, when a woman internist, identified as Hillary's doctor, released a summary letter about her health that was lacking in the specifics one would normally expect in medical records. Does anyone really think that world-renowned Hillary, whose main residence for years has been in Washington and not Chappaqua, has as her primary physician an obscure young internist in Mount Kisco, New York? It's ludicrous on the face of it. And what about that persistent cough? "Allergy season," the hacking Hillary claimed on a New York radio show this week. ("You all right? Any mouth to mouth CPR?" joked a host.) I'm just a Ph.D., not an M.D., but I'll put my Miss Marple hat on here. Am I the only one who noticed Hillary's high-wrap collar, pallid, puffy face, and bulging eyes during her choleric New Hampshire primary concession speech in February? (Another unusually high collar followed the next morning.) My tentative theory is that Hillary may have sporadic flare-ups of goiter, worsened under stress. Coughing is a symptom. High collars mask a swollen throat. In serious cases, an operation may be necessary. Is this chronic thyroid condition disqualifying in a presidential candidate? Certainly not in my view, but I don't like being lied to—by candidates, campaign staffs, or their media sycophants."

I first discovered Paglia in 1993, when she was interviewed for Wired by Stewart Brand; I figured if he found her interesting I probably would too. And I did; I remember thinking, "My God! An honest woman!" as she expressed disdain for the feminist obsession with "Date Rape!!!" and insisted that women would never grow up until they were held fully accountable for their actions. What an idea!

what value there is to be gained from reading … anything by her?

I'd highly recommend at least two essays, "Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art" (the first chapter of her first book Sexual Personae) and "No Law in the Arena" (second chapter in Vamps and Tramps). Excellent, even vital, background for Red Pill studies. Sexuality is Nature's brute force, and as Roosh writes in the previous post, Nature doesn't care. We think we can play with it, but actually it plays with us.

Somewhere in Sexual Personae, I think it was, she characterizes herself as "a woman who thinks like a man"; I thought, "No, Camille, you're a woman who thinks she thinks like a man." And she's close, as close as any woman I've come across, but still… by that very token she's a perfect example of the ultimately unbridgeable gulf. She thinks very well, but doesn't carry through to the unavoidable conclusions – as on the present subject – because she simply can't deal with it.

The thing is, women will never be held fully accountable for their actions. The Pussy Pass is hardwired, and they can't help using it; it's instinctive.

I look in on Paglia now and then, but her obsession with "popular culture" (i.e. "Madonna") is of no interest to me. She's gone as fur as she can go, and I like her, but she's still a woman. And I'm increasingly convinced that Rich Zubaty was absolutely right: there are things men know (or can know; nowadays it seems not many do) which women simply cannot.

Abortion should be encouraged. Let the progtards, et al, abort themselves out of existence. They already don't reproduce enough to replace themselves. They're trying real hard via indoctrination of youth but there are ways to combat that.

First of all, this is morally relativistic tripe. Either its murder or it isn't - maybe you were being facetious? Certainly babies aren't born progtards. Secondly, the left does not concede defeat because they don't breed - they simply import their hordes through a combination of unenforced laws and unrestricted welfare, or convert your offspring... they are parasites afterall. The left will never go away on their own accord, they need to be handed defeat after defeat after defeat - we are not in a pitched battle like the movies, we are in a battle of endurance. He who endures to the end shall be saved.

How often do I read how women have been freed from the slavery of child birth....The left has been successful at heir classic game, redefining language. The left managed to take childbirth, motherhood, the single most important and most rewarding act in human society and turn it into to some foul demon to be conquered.Then what do contemporary women do, but run around chasing meaningless status, gossip and baubles to fill the void yet never doing so.Ask any mother who has worked AND had children, which was more rewarding. Ask them if given the choice they could go back and just be a mother would they do so.There is always another meeting or email or work crisis. The little foots steps, the silly giggles, the sleep cuddles are fleeting and only ever happen once

I find Paglia to be a not always sound thinker, but otherwise a genuinely thoughtful person with original opinions, not one of the go along get along moralists that are alas so common.

As for abortion, the feminist has two reasons for being pro abortion. It is an issue they can play against the other side, and it is yet another way of being against motherhood (or traditional marriage) as a legitimate role for women.

The major contribution women have made to the human race has been the production of the next generation. If the desire is to raise their status the method should be the recognition and support of that role. Instead feminists implicitly denegrate women everywhere by disparaging their most important accomplishment, and instead supposing they should be acting more like men. The problem is that women in general do not make good men any more than the effiminate man makes a good women.

Status is a social construct. It is assigned by human societies, not inherent in nature.

"If nothing else, you should know your enemy. She's critical of her own side, so she hits you with the best arguments her side has to offer."

My point was that she, and her ilk, are no longer our enemy - if anything they are enemy of our enemies.

But your point is sound - the 'regretful musings of an aged feminist' probably point to the real vulnerable points in a feminist ID.

My main worry, and cause of my question over whether it's worth reading her, is due to the absolutely demented nature of contemporary feminism and whether it's vulnerable to the vestigial traces of womanhood and vulnerability displayed by the likes of Paglia who may have been feminist by standards of their generation but were, as Vox points out, products of either a Christian society or freshly post-Christian, still majority 'Christian', society.

Appreciate recommendations on her work, and I will check those essays out, but those still seem to be useful only in terms of understanding her and her generation - and my point is that they are no longer relevant in ter,s of understanding the *autistic screeching* generation of feminists and SJWs.

Too many young women get blinded by expectations, their own or someone else's. I don't know very many self-knowing and intrinsically motivated young people, especially women. It happens but usually after children.

I knew a few guys in college who conceived children with their girlfriends. Not ONS or booty calls, but girls they professed to love. In half the cases the girls were scared, anxious the guy would leave them, worried for their futures. So we're the guys. All of the guys said "have an abortion." Not wanting to break up over it, the girls had the abortions, and the relationship ended anyway.

One kept her baby over the boyfriend's wishes. She's got a gorgeous 17 yo young lady whom I'm proud to welcome into my family (we are not blood but very close). My friend thanks God everyday for her girl, and for the family she had beyond that daughter, with another man. Theyve returned to Christ and serve Him, and raised all of their kids well. She dropped out of school and had a few hard years but she was right to choose life.

The others? Most of the guys got their careers and new cars and trucks and condos in Chichi towns, are divorced or in hookup relationships. The gals are by and large divorced, alcoholic or on pain meds or SSRIs, have brilliant careers and make lots of money and look fabulous at 40-something. Maybe they're happy, I only know what I see on FB.

You can only for so long deny basic biology and an upbringing even on the fringes of the rich moral tapestry of Christian society. Abortion, cheap and easy sex, and grasping at material wealth at the expense of your soul is disaster. No, accumulating material wealth is not a sin, unless you sell your soul to get it.

I will check those essays out, but those still seem to be useful only in terms of understanding her and her generation

Those two essays at least are not about "her and her generation", but about the harsh realities of our predicament, as human beings living in a brutal universe which, despite our fond illusions, has its own "agenda" and cares not a whit about us. As Roosh points out, the unconscious, low-IQ masses relentlessly breeding are more in tune with the World's priorities than are we who worry about non-worldly concepts like the morality of killing. It's not an accident that the majority of abortions in America are in the African community.

Very little love for what it means to be a woman, just envy over not being a man.

Denigrating traditional roles does this to people. Too much rah-rah, not enough grounding in reality.

Something simple and silly recently happened to me that made me feel like I can finally accept my calling as a nurturer. My father validated an acquisition we'd recently made (a small farm and its animals!). He was proud of me for finishing school and for marrying and having children, but he saw me living out one of his dreams with the farm, and he felt like his life's purpose was partly fulfilled and I had done that for him.

Whew! All those other things I tried were so masculine and difficult. This is easy in comparison but since he recognizes it fits, I'm happy to be at peace with it.

There is nothing admirable about this woman. If she were honest and reasonable she would be neither an atheist nor a feminist. The only salvageable aspects of Paglia are redeemable through Christ Jesus alone.

Paglia knows the truth intellectually, now she needs to grasp it emotionally. It would not take much for her to make the jump fully to our side. It would not surprise me at all if she did so in the next five years.

I find it telling that she comes down on the side of "It's ok to kill an inconvenient baby" but is horrified at parents putting children through "gender reassignment therapies". What did she think was going to happen when a child's life becomes a commodity? But because she identifies with the confused child (but not the unwanted baby), permanent medical procedures in THAT case are baaaaaad.

The major contribution women have made to the human race has been the production of the next generation. If the desire is to raise their status the method should be the recognition and support of that role.

A reasonable view, yes. However, most of the world does not run on reason. I note that in most, probably all, human cultures, civilized or not, when a woman has amassed enough status or wealth to write her own ticket, she will fob off the hard work of child rearing on a hired (or enslaved) wet-nurse / nanny. The woman who truly finds fulfillment in her natural role is, unfortunately, comparatively rare. And this is compounded by the perennial female feeling that somehow they've gotten the short stick compared to men. That is why, as soon as the women of the West found themselves able to slough off the onerous responsibilities of motherhood, they have done so. And set out to make themselves into men, which is impossible. I don't know if there is any solution, other than a mass transformation in the individual human heart, which doesn't look likely. Roosh may well be right.

Paglia knows the truth intellectually, now she needs to grasp it emotionally.

Yes. And, as an "independent" woman, she simply cannot. It's a tragedy, really. I'd say she's never met a man who was strong enough, in intellect and spirit, to tame her. She's smart enough to know that's what she needs, and she tries to do it herself, but she can't do it all.

There's a reason why all the great spiritual teachers have been men. As Meher Baba put it, women can rise to the level of Perfect Masters, but the Avatar – the peak of the spiritual pyramid – is always male. (And of course, he must have a mother, to be born on the Earth plane. To be the Mother of the Supreme One is the highest role of a woman.)

I mean, I love Ann Coulter, but the fact that she is having to pick up a man's role is the real tragedy of the West. She too apparently has never met a man she had to respect enough to join and support him. Women run on instinct in these matters; no amount of reasonable argument will get anywhere.

Biological family is the natural locus of human devotion. The rise of statism, amplified exponentially by social(ist) democracy's busybody lifeblood, seeks human devotion and thus regards the family as its mortal enemy.

Democratic Statists want you to look on your Somali-refugee neighbor on one side, and your two-dads-raising-"their"-kids on the other side, with the love in your eyes normally reserved for gazes at your children and grandchildren.

If individuals espousing this openly stood before you, the impulse to cut out their hearts would be irresistible. So they worm their way like termites into the structure of our society, leaving sawdust mixed with excrement in their wake.

@43: The woman who truly finds fulfillment in her natural role is, unfortunately, comparatively rare.

Not true. Feminism is about having women eat the apple before they realize some of the happiest people on earth are the Mormon Mommy bloggers.

Yes, it is true that the human female is a herd animal (as is the human male, though to a lesser extent), and more would find fulfillment in their natural role if it weren't for the pernicious influences. But the actual fact is, at present few do, whatever the reasons.

I remember some 20 years ago, when I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, him mentioning one day that some survey had found that the happiest people were long-married Christian women. I thought, Boy, the feminists will hate that one! They will insist that those women aren't really happy, they only think they are. And how do you know? If a person says she is happy, on what basis do you say she is not?

Women find their happiness in being the wives and mothers of great men, rather than being like those great men. That's partly because achieving greatness requires a varying combination of luck, natural talent/inclination, and a psychopathic dedication to the craft that most women either cannot or do not want to invest in. Women, otoh, can achieve success merely by getting married and reproducing, which most women have managed to do at least once. As Paglia understands, feminism told women it was more fulfilling to be a third-rate man than a first-rate woman. And so Paglia finds herself at a crucial junction point: feminism, in all its tenets, has failed. Does she abandon it completely or continue holding onto the contradiction, which she fully acknowledges exists?

For what it is worth, abortion will always be legal and available for the simple reason that every thinking man and woman know that any interpretation of the Bible that is said to condemn abortion is bogus, propaganda, and religious hocus pocus spread by the deluded.

Square this circle:(1) Abortion is murder and should be absolutely stopped.(2) Black women have abortions at 3 times the rate of white women, and there would be 19 million more blacks in the USA (cumulative since 1973) if they were not aborted. That would be an increase from the current number of blacks by about 50%.

Where would the US be politically, economically, and socially if there were 19 million more blacks?

The professional Dem politicos know full well that most women who procure an abortion will spend the rest of their lives rationalizing and justifying the decision, necessarily voting straight Dem in the process. With single women heavily Dem on the possibility of such future decision, the party finds itself encouraging abortion and discouraging marriage by virtual of cold political logic.

Since we're talking contra-factuals, let's add this to the mix: Where would we be if there were 30 million fewer illegal invaders from Squatemala and 65 million fewer Turd World legal immigrants?...

And yet here we are. How do you propose removing all off those illegal & legal immigrants without murder? Sure we can make abortion illegal (and we should). But you can't kick out all those immigrants without murdering a huge number of them as incentive to leave. And believing they will leave without lethal incentive is foolish.

Liberty is an extension of life, and not just life, but an ordered life, where chaos doesn't reign. Women's liberation can't be tied to their ability to avoid offspring. Liberation doesn't exist without offspring. Even pretending for a moment that it could, then it's likewise liberation for the male of the species. Does anyone believe men aren't shackled by having to support their offspring?But I don't buy it. Even the term "libido" is related to liberation. There's no reason to work hard if we aren't doing so for future generations. It's inwardly destrudo, while outwardly constructive. It's like building castles in the sky. To add yet another metaphor, this modern liberation is like finding the dead end in a maze. Men and women can either be liberated together in building and maintaining society, or they can be shackled together in their own destruction.

A talented rhetorician, I'll concede, but articulate facile eloquence does not equal erudite profundity. That's the difference between a confidence man and a sage. Atheists and the tractable often confuse and sometimes conflate the two.

Paraphrasing a kernel of impressive erudition: The truth is still the truth even if no one believes it and a falsehood is still a falsehood even if everyone believes it. ~ ? C.S. Lewis? I can't remember where I remember it from.

This is why rhetoric is such a useful and, potentially, a dangerously compelling tool.

Great thread. I 'd say thanks except it made me delay my WOD for far too long. But, It also pushed Umberto Eco up my reading queue. I found the comment about the Mormon Mommy bloggers being some of the happiest people on earth interesting. I live among them, in the suburbs of Provo. You'd have to live here to understand the almost complete homogeneity of belief. I have to agree with that statement, they are incredibly happy, secure, seemingly content women. The men..I'm still trying to get a handle on them. As it relates to Paglia and Western Society/Christianity- I do find myself wondering If I'm to live among the Mormons, and enjoy the benefits (and there are some) of their way of life, what, if any, duty do I have to give a hat tip to the local Gods. I don't believe in their mythology/theology, yet (for now) I'm content to live among the rather peaceful society that faith produces. Unlike Ms Paglia, I have no desire to set about making the locals question the goodness of what their beliefs produce.. But then, she seems to have already made the transition from questioning the goodness of what Western Christianity produced, to what her own ideology (questioning Christianity)has led to. She seems to be a heretic to a belief system that ran far beyond the borders of reason or common sense. Sort of how I felt last year when being cast out of the Cuck circle for questioning open border and free trade, among other things.

If (black, but universally applicable) women had no ready abortion recourse, casual extramarital sex would become riskier, thus encouraging marriage and a more conservative electorate.

Bingo. Abortion used as birth control is part of the overall push for more responsibility-free sex and tearing down Christian morals throughout society. The abortion numbers don't exist in a vacuum; it's both symptom and cause of the wider problem.

Also, anyone who thinks a woman with three abortions and two children would have five children if abortion were illegal is just being dense. That's like musicians claiming every pirated song would be a sale if piracy were impossible. Let the first abortion be a baby, and you affect future behavior.

68. Bellator Mortalis May 16, 2017 2:25 PMAnd yet here we are. How do you propose removing all off those illegal & legal immigrants without murder? Sure we can make abortion illegal (and we should). But you can't kick out all those immigrants without murdering a huge number of them as incentive to leave. And believing they will leave without lethal incentive is foolish.

Turn off the entitlement spigot? Most of them come here because it's the equivalent of the good life in their home country...

I could never stand Camille Paglia. Like her surname, she is made of straw. She's only a muddling quasi-intellectual and her logic has always been the equivalent of runny cow excrement. Some people may call it fertiliser, but you don't want it in your reading material at breakfast. And what does it fertilise anyway? At best, a death cult. I have never had any use for her. And never will.The only difference is that while I was content to ignore her before, now I'd happily burn her at the stake if she ever dared to enter my hypothetical fortress city without repenting.

@62"Square this circle:(1) Abortion is murder and should be absolutely stopped.(2) Black women have abortions at 3 times the rate of white women, and there would be 19 million more blacks in the USA (cumulative since 1973) if they were not aborted. That would be an increase from the current number of blacks by about 50%.

Where would the US be politically, economically, and socially if there were 19 million more blacks? "

The linear thinking of the leftist. People, even blacks, respond to incentives. People also have an odd tendency to respond to safety nets with increased risk taking. When people know cheap, easy abortions will not be available to them when they have an oops, they will exercise a lot more discretion in who they sleep with or at least make sure they use a rubber. Basically, they will return at least partially, to the sexual patterns they had before the age of the birth control safety net.

to 24 and to 7 (dc sunsets and grayman) - good for you. But it is sad that you needed to see your own children, or to imagine your own children, to understand such a simple truth. You live in a world filled with billions of young people, billions of old people, billions of unborn people, and their untold billions of guardian angels, and yet you resisted seeing the truth until you saw a little child who was your own descendant. Well, better late than never. Welcome to the real world: I, for one, will pray every day for the rest of my life for blessings on your household. That is what children of God do for each other.

@79, hell, just Trump talking mean caused a million self-deportations. Put up a wall and you'll get big movement out. Start deporting and you'll get another. Fine the arse off companies that hire illegals and the outward movement will become a flood.

It is actually a very easy problem to fix, and requires little to no force of any kind, let alone murder.

haus frau wrote:People, even blacks, respond to incentives. People also have an odd tendency to respond to safety nets with increased risk taking. When people know cheap, easy abortions will not be available to them when they have an oops, they will exercise a lot more discretion in who they sleep with or at least make sure they use a rubber.That is only true of people who can foresee consequences, and men who will take no for an answer (Black men are notorious for refusing to do this). Basically, you have to have a first-world population for this to work as you think it should.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote about about the frightening level of Black illegitimacy (26%) in the 1960's, well before Roe v. Wade. Perhaps liberalized welfare policies were having an effect then; I don't know enough about the timing of those policy changes.